Talk:Martin Farquhar Tupper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Poetry (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

NPOV[edit]

The commonplace character of Tupper's reflections is indubitable, and his blank verse is only prose cut up into suitable lengths; but the Proverbial Philosophy was full of a perfectly genuine moral and religious feeling, and contained many apt and striking expressions. By these qualities it appealed to a large and uncritical section of the public.

Come on now, Tupper's 'poetry' sucks. I have an original copy of the 13th edition of Proverbial Philosophy, and know what I'm talking about. It's some of the most boring and pompous drivel that ever sold in the millions. However, it is not for us to judge its quality, nor to claim that the public liked it because it was good. (BTW, the last sentence quoted above is a non-sequitur; if the public were truly uncritical, they would not have been able to appreciate either the 'genuine moral and religious feeling' or the 'many apt and striking expressions' and would presumably only have bought it because everybody else from Queen Victoria down owned a copy. Which they did, and which is probably a major reason why it sold so well.)

The more significant and verifiable fact about Tupper is that he was massively popular in the Victorian period, probably bigger than Tennyson and Browning, and yet now he is almost forgotten, and what little critical writing about him exists is almost entirely negative. He was the Robert James Waller, the Paolo Coelho, of his era. That, at least, can be demonstrated by the near-total eclipse of his enormous fame after his death. Lexo (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at this post, and speaking as a slightly older and considerably more experienced WP contributor and editor, all I can say is that this article demonstrates the folly of importing public-domain Britannica articles into a 21st century encyclopedia. Lexo (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking over it I came to exactly the same conclusions: that the text was wildly imbalanced (and more than a bit pompous itself) and thus it probably came from Britannica. This kind of writing does not serve Wikipedia well.--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

By now, this article seems to be biased in the opposite direction: Tupper survives if at all as a second-rate, puffed up poet whose success was only possible in a literary market where "philistines" might be able to approve of his platitudes. Wow, that's harsh. Surely a more neutral medium can be found? Robofish (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)